God science

[-Cp]

Let me explain the problem science has with religion." The atheist professor
of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students
to stand.

"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"

"Yes sir," the student says.

"So you believe in God?"

"Absolutely."

"Is God good?"

"Sure! God's good."

"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"

"Yes."

"Are you good or evil?"

"The Bible says I'm evil."

The professor grins knowingly. "Aha! The Bible!" He considers for a moment.
"Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can
cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?"

"Yes sir, I would."

"So you're good...!"

"I wouldn't say that."

"But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could.
Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't."

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. "He doesn't, does
he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to
Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"

The student remains silent.

"No, you can't, can you?" the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a
glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

"Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"

"Er...yes," the student says.

"Is Satan good?"

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. "No."

"Then where does Satan come from?"

The student falters. "From God"

"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in
this world?"

"Yes, sir."

"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?"

"Yes."

"So who created evil?" The professor continued, "If God created everything,
then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle
that our works define who we are, then God is evil."

Again, the student has no answer. "Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred?
Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?"

The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."

"So who created them?"

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question.
"Who created them?" There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks
away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. "Tell me,"
he continues onto another student. "Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor, I do."

The old man stops pacing. "Science says you have five senses you use to
identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?"

"No sir. I've never seen Him."

"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"

"No, sir, I have not."

"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have
you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that
matter?"

"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."

"Yet you still believe in him?"

"Yes."

"According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol,
science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?"

"Nothing," the student replies. "I only have my faith."

"Yes, faith," the professor repeats. "And that is the problem science has
with God. There is no evidence, only faith."

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His
own. "Professor, is there such thing as heat?"

"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."

"And is there such a thing as cold?"

"Yes, son, there's cold too."

"No sir, there isn't."

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room
suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. "You can have
lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white
heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We
can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any
further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be
able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees."

"Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits
energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy.
Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is
only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold.
Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the
opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding
like a hammer.

"What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?"

"Yes," the professor replies without hesitation. "What is night if it isn't
darkness?"

"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of
something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing
light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called
darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word."

"In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness
darker, wouldn't you?"

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a
good semester. "So what point are you making, young man?"

"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start
with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed."

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. "Flawed? Can you
explain how?"

"You are working on the premise of duality," the student explains. "You
argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God.
You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can
measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought."

"It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully
understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be
ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death
is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it."

"Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a
monkey?"

"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes,
of course I do."

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where
the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

"Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot
even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching
your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?"

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has
subsided.

"To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me
give you an example of what I mean."

The student looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has
ever seen the professor's brain?" The class breaks out into laughter.

"Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the
professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to
have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable,
demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due
respect, sir."

"So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?"

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face
unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. "I guess you'll
have to take them on faith."

"Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,"
the student continues. "Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?"

Now uncertain, the professor responds, "Of course, there is. We see it
everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in
the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These
manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does
not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like
darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of
God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man
does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes
when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.

This student's statements are true, can you or can you not make night
darker?

Is it possible for it to get colder after absolute zero -458 degree's F.

Can you feel, taste, see, hear, or smell your brain?

[diuretic]

Inference :D

[typomaniac]

My major interest in "God science" is that I'd like a chance to dissect God.

[avatar4321]

My major interest in "God science" is that I'd like a chance to dissect God.

and how exactly will that teach us anything new?

[diuretic]

That was a fun little story but Plato it ain't. Still it's not mean to be I suppose. The author wrote it for the converted, not to convert.

[PostmodernProphet]

.....can you refute the student's logical analysis?

[typomaniac]

and how exactly will that teach us anything new?

We could see what God's brains are made of. :uhoh:

[actsnoblemartin]

I hate teachers with agenda's, shut up and teach.

Also, teach kids HOW to think, NOT what to think.


when you teach a child critical thinking skills, you just gave him a skill he can use for his whole life.

[diuretic]

.....can you refute the student's logical analysis?

There is no logical analysis in it. It's just a contrived piece of propaganda, it's not an argument.

You see the way I see it is this. If you - and I do mean you - believe in God then I am happy for you. I don't. But I'm not going to tell you (a) you're wrong or (b) you're stupid or (c) there is no God. What the hell do I know?

If I'm asked about my religious beliefs I simply state I haven't got any.
If I'm asked if I believe in God I have to say, no I don't.
I don't retort with a "there is no God you idiot". How would I know?

If you have faith, if you believe, then you - and I do mean you - don't need any affirmation from anyone else and the ignorant who would decry your faith will have no effect on you. And that's how it should be.

So when I read something contrived like this piece, it irks me. It's contrived because it's written by someone who feels they have to take on an atheist and to make their opponent look foolish. The author can present the atheist professor as an arrogant smart-arse, trying to make the poor believer student look like a fool. But the author will write the piece and put words in the mouth of each actor to suit the aims of the author. In this instance the arrogant atheist in the position of power over the believer student is shown to be a fool by the student's responses. Unfortunately for the author though, the logic fails and the misrepresentation of the atheist position doesn't help either.

Instead of this type of writing it would be preferable for us to try to understand and accept each other's points of view and not to combat one another because ultimately it's pointless. Common decency tells me not to seek to offend someone by ridiculing their religious beliefs (whatever they are). Common sense tells me not to let myself be put upon by anyone's beliefs - religious or otherwise.

[Sitarro]

There is no logical analysis in it. It's just a contrived piece of propaganda, it's not an argument.

You see the way I see it is this. If you - and I do mean you - believe in God then I am happy for you. I don't. But I'm not going to tell you (a) you're wrong or (b) you're stupid or (c) there is no God. What the hell do I know?

If I'm asked about my religious beliefs I simply state I haven't got any.
If I'm asked if I believe in God I have to say, no I don't.
I don't retort with a "there is no God you idiot". How would I know?

If you have faith, if you believe, then you - and I do mean you - don't need any affirmation from anyone else and the ignorant who would decry your faith will have no effect on you. And that's how it should be.

So when I read something contrived like this piece, it irks me. It's contrived because it's written by someone who feels they have to take on an atheist and to make their opponent look foolish. The author can present the atheist professor as an arrogant smart-arse, trying to make the poor believer student look like a fool. But the author will write the piece and put words in the mouth of each actor to suit the aims of the author. In this instance the arrogant atheist in the position of power over the believer student is shown to be a fool by the student's responses. Unfortunately for the author though, the logic fails and the misrepresentation of the atheist position doesn't help either.

Instead of this type of writing it would be preferable for us to try to understand and accept each other's points of view and not to combat one another because ultimately it's pointless. Common decency tells me not to seek to offend someone by ridiculing their religious beliefs (whatever they are). Common sense tells me not to let myself be put upon by anyone's beliefs - religious or otherwise.

Great post diuretic, I tried to give you meaningless reputation points but it seems I am nolonger able to do that since I was banned, I have tried to rep three others and I am not allowed......*shrug*

[diuretic]

That's much appreciated Sitarro and thank you to Jon as well.

[PostmodernProphet]

There is no logical analysis in it.

sure there is....

"Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."

"Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something."

"Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

seems like a legitimate logical argument to me......

[diuretic]

sure there is....

"Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."

"Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something."

"Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

seems like a legitimate logical argument to me......

Semantical points I'm afraid. Everything turns on the shared meanings of the words used.

If someone is going to mount an argument from analogy then the analogy has to be very close to the situation being argued or it loses its potency.

Darkness isn't the absence of something because there's no such thing as darkness. It's a word that we use to describe what we perceive as a lessening of light.

Moving from there to "Evil is simply the absence of God" is also a semantical word game. I can argue that "evil" is a human social construct but that's only my opinion, what do I know about it? I'm no expert.


"Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

I understand the emotion behind the words and I appreciate it. But - and again I'm no logics master - take the emotional meaning from the words and you're not left with much.

If God is responsible for everything then He created evil. If God is omnipotent then by definition He can't be "absent". He can be rejected, but He can't be absent.

By all means admire the piece as an appeal to emotion but don't assert its logic when it's really sophistry.

[PostmodernProphet]

Everything turns on the shared meanings of the words used

show me a logical argument which doesn't......that shouldn't keep us from discussing the validity of the logical argument.....

it appears there is agreement that there is no substance or force known as "dark", it is simply the lack of that which we know as "light"....

now I know that one of the favorite arguments of those critical of a belief in God is the argument that if there was a God, he would be responsible for "evil" and therefore, not worthy of praise.....

is it not logically consistent to posit that "evil" is not a thing created, but simply action devoid of any "good"....thus, rather than being brought about by God, it exists as a result of man's action, freely willed?.....

[Hagbard Celine]

Wow. I'll go ahead and forward this to seven people as fast as I can so that I'll have good luck all day...:rolleyes:

[glockmail]

Great post diuretic, I tried to give you meaningless reputation points but it seems I am nolonger able to do that since I was banned, I have tried to rep three others and I am not allowed......*shrug*
why'd u get banned?

[Missileman]

is it not logically consistent to posit that "evil" is not a thing created, but simply action devoid of any "good"

Don't you think that an absence of "good" would be neutral?

[PostmodernProphet]

Don't you think that an absence of "good" would be neutral?


no, because you have made a transition from intent to consequence.....a person's actions may have no impact (neutral) but they may still have been intended to be very good or had an intention which lacked any good.....but the actions were simply ineffective.....

perhaps 'apathetic' was what you intended?.....people acting without considering whether or not their actions are good or not?......but isn't acting without considering consequence simply another form of 'evil'?....and, action which lacks 'good'?.....

[Missileman]

no, because you have made a transition from intent to consequence.....a person's actions may have no impact (neutral) but they may still have been intended to be very good or had an intention which lacked any good.....but the actions were simply ineffective.....

perhaps 'apathetic' was what you intended?.....people acting without considering whether or not their actions are good or not?......but isn't acting without considering consequence simply another form of 'evil'?....and, action which lacks 'good'?.....

I wasn't restricting my use of good and evil to just a person's actions. A pebble is neither good nor evil. The pebble's absence of "good" doesn't make it "evil".

[PostmodernProphet]

I wasn't restricting my use of good and evil to just a person's actions.

??...was that because you wanted to make the debate silly and meaningless?.....

[Missileman]

??...was that because you wanted to make the debate silly and meaningless?.....

The initial comparisons were to light and heat, neither of which are human actions either...are you suggesting the OP was silly and meaningless?

[PostmodernProphet]

The initial comparisons were to light and heat, neither of which are human actions either...are you suggesting the OP was silly and meaningless?

sweet, we can take human action out of the equation with respect to good and evil......then we ought to take heat out of the equation with respect to hot and cold.......

[diuretic]

show me a logical argument which doesn't......that shouldn't keep us from discussing the validity of the logical argument.....

Formal logic doesn't depend on the meaning of words, it's all about validity of argument depending on structure. You know how it goes with syllogisms.




it appears there is agreement that there is no substance or force known as "dark", it is simply the lack of that which we know as "light"....

now I know that one of the favorite arguments of those critical of a belief in God is the argument that if there was a God, he would be responsible for "evil" and therefore, not worthy of praise.....

is it not logically consistent to posit that "evil" is not a thing created, but simply action devoid of any "good"....thus, rather than being brought about by God, it exists as a result of man's action, freely willed?.....

Firstly - just making the point, not seeing anything as an accusation - I'm personally not critical of a belief in God. As I said earlier, I may not believe but I'm not a wild-eyed enthusiastic atheist out to convert believers, I'm just a run of the mill person who doesn't believe but isn't hostile to belief. No, I'm not agnostic either. Call it "atheism lite" :laugh2:

I don't know if it can be argued that evil is an absence of good. I would put that under the fallacy of the excluded middle. There an be a null, a neither "good" nor "evil". As I said before, I still think "good" and "evil" are socially constructed. Does an animal do "good" or "evil" by other animals? Is a lioness hunting a zebra doing "evil"?

And yes, the argument that God gave humans free will will trump the objection that God allows evil.

[Missileman]

sweet, we can take human action out of the equation with respect to good and evil......then we ought to take heat out of the equation with respect to hot and cold.......

Are you going to argue that good is analogous to light and heat or are you going to argue that it isn't? Can something be good or evil without human action or can't it?

[PostmodernProphet]

Can something be good or evil without human action or can't it?


in this discussion I would say it can't.....I might get up in the morning and eat a "good" breakfast, but the opposite isn't an "evil" breakfast.......unless, perhaps, it was cooked by Lucretia Borgia......

[avatar4321]

I wasn't restricting my use of good and evil to just a person's actions. A pebble is neither good nor evil. The pebble's absence of "good" doesn't make it "evil".

Something is only neutral until it takes a position. The second one embraces good its impossible to become neutral again because when they turn away from it they will be evil.

[diuretic]

Something is only neutral until it takes a position. The second one embraces good its impossible to become neutral again because when they turn away from it they will be evil.

What if it has no potential for action?

[Missileman]

in this discussion I would say it can't.....I might get up in the morning and eat a "good" breakfast, but the opposite isn't an "evil" breakfast.......unless, perhaps, it was cooked by Lucretia Borgia......

Is God good? Is Satan evil? Is a person's action responsible for either?

[PostmodernProphet]

Is God good? Is Satan evil? Is a person's action responsible for either?

God-yes, Satan-no.....neither are rocks, they are capable of their own actions and intents.....

[Missileman]

God-yes, Satan-no.....neither are rocks, they are capable of their own actions and intents.....

The point, which you seem loathe to admit, is that something can be good, evil, or neutral without a human's involvement at all. Which brings us back to the OP. Because something can be neutral, evil is not the absence of good, it's the antithesis. That renders the comparisons of evil to cold and darkness invalid.